Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the payload is the 'full indexed text' versus the search excerpt, which is useful. It says nothing about behavior for a missing recordId, response size limits, or whether the text is truncated, all of which matter for an open-world fetch.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scoped by the parameter and the usage condition. No filler, no restatement of the title.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return-value shape need not be explained, and the tool is a one-parameter read with a clear precondition. The only remaining gap is failure behavior for an unknown or expired recordId in an open-world corpus, which is minor but real.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single parameter is documented in the schema with length bounds, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds provenance ('returned by search_medical'), reinforcing where a valid recordId comes from, but nothing about format or validity beyond that. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read the full indexed text of one record'), names the corpus, and pins the lookup key to recordId. It is clearly distinguishable from the search/list siblings because it retrieves a single known record rather than querying a collection.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly names the preceding tool ('Use after search when the excerpt is not enough'), which both gives the when-to-use condition and implies when-not (if the excerpt already answers the question). The alternative, search_medical, is named in the same sentence.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.